5 ms·

The best thing for amercia to be great again is a new president who doesn't fuck up all foreign relations and trade.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Yes let's keep up foreign relations where we pay for people to arm themselves against us (china). Or we pay for the defense of people who won't pay to defend themselves (EU).
- NicoJuicy 2y ago
  US for a long time literally didn't want Europe to build a military/nuclear power ( and compete... ) Learn history :)
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    No this is wrong. Europe has nuclear power, weapons, and navies. And Europe has an obligation to spend on its own defense (which they have not fulfilled in some time).
    - ojl 2y ago
      Two countries in Europe have nuclear weapons (several have nuclear power though). Sweden for example had a nuclear weapons program that was shut down in the late 60s (guess which country strongly wanted us to shut it down). I think most European countries cut down too much on the defence after the Cold War, but it seems we are about to fix that. But it’s not like the US gave away fighter jets and other weapon systems for free. Several European countries spent lots of money buying US planes and other stuff.
    - NicoJuicy 2y ago
      France and the UK have it despite the US not wanting it too. Luckily! > And Europe has an obligation to spend on its own defense Yes, since the US wants to pivot to Asia. That's fairly recent on the timescale :) > which they have not fulfilled in some time Did you know the US, unlike the others, includes pensions as "military spending"? But yeah, now ... They will raise it to the required 2 % (which a lot already do)
- lucasyvas 2y ago
  This is a piss take.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Bummer for you it's US national policy right now.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      Not an argument
      - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        IT IS what the majority of people voted for, so it very much IS a valid argument. If you don't like it, tough luck, but that's how democracy works. You can vote next time to change it.
        Zamaamiro 2y ago
        The majority of people thought they were voting for cheaper groceries, not for undoing our entire system of alliances and global trade. Also, the President is not a King, so just because people voted for him it doesn't mean opposition ceases to exist. Opposition and push-back to executive policy been a mainstay of US politics. It's been true of Democratic Presidents (e.g., federal courts blocking Biden's policies), and it remains true of the current President.
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        >The majority of people thought they were voting for cheaper groceries, not for undoing our entire system of alliances and global trade. If you look at the approval rating for democrats and republicans, as reported by CNN this week, that disagrees with you. People who voted for Trump seem to be happy with what he's doing.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  There’s a reason we don’t want Germany and Japan arming themselves, see world history from 1933-1945 for why.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > There’s a reason we don’t want Germany and Japan arming themselves, see world history from 1933-1945 for why. It's bizarre and frankly racist to think that that illustrates some immutable property of Germany and Japan rather than forces that can materialize in any country.
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      I disagree, it’s not bizarre to think that Germany won’t try to take over the world again when they’ve already tried. Twice. I don’t consider it to be at all likely to happen, but there’s a much better chance of Germany going to war against the world than there is for virtually every other country. Feel free to ignore history, I’m not going to.
    - brigandish 2y ago
      I live in Japan, and I can tell you that I'm worried about Japan. There are constant murmurings among politicians to repeal article 9 of the constitution, the one shackling it from war; you talk about racism but the xenophobia here is visceral and constant; and there's still bad feeling that is also noticeable regarding WWII and towards other Asians and their countries. I've met some lovely, kind, and outward looking people in my time here, but I'd have to be as blind as a bat to miss the dark undertones running through society. If the Americans didn't have their bases here I think we'd be back to a pre end of WW2 Japan quite quickly.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Who is "we" in this, because it certainly isn't true of US national policy for many decades re Germany (e.g. NATO), or Japan for the last decade or so.
    - 2y ago
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > "we pay for people to arm themselves against us" Sounds like you want a completely isolationist trade policy. How has that worked out for the US in the past? The only way to never pay another country to arm themselves against us or any other country is to never give them money, and unless we force them at gunpoint to give us what we want that is not going to happen. > "we pay for the defense of people who won't pay to defend themselves" The EU doesn't spend 0% on defense. Many of them are NATO members who are increasing their spending and who have demonstrated that they'll follow us into war after we are attacked (Afghanistan as an example). The US gets far more in soft power/geopolitical benefits out of our European allies and NATO members than we put in.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    >Sounds like you want a completely isolationist trade policy No. You made this up. >The EU doesn't spend 0% on defense. They don't spend their full NATO commitments. And they are only increasing their spending because the current POTUS is bullying them into it. >soft power/geopolitical benefits People love talking about this but hard power is better.
    - ojl 2y ago
      > They don't spend their full NATO commitments. Some do and some don’t. EU is not one country. But in general it’s a bit strange that we didn’t start increase spending already around 2014.
    - Zamaamiro 2y ago
      Americans enjoy their current (highly subsidized) standard of living in large part because we produce a surplus of goods and services that we export to the rest of the world. If a good chunk of the world turns against the US, such that they refuse to consume our goods and services, then Americans will not be able to continue to enjoy their current standard of living. This is why "soft power" matters, and it's why would-be contenders such as China have invested as heavily as they have in building up their soft power in LatAm, Africa, and elsewhere. So yes, enjoy your "hard power," but you'll probably be poor.
- watwut 2y ago
  Regular reminder that the only time article 5 of NATO was invoked, it was USA asking others to help them in war they actually wanted. And when unwanted war became possble in EU came USA ended up allying itself with Russia while trying to extort the victim country for minerals. It did helped initially, but it did not lasted and USA turned into a bully. All the while threatening annexation of parts of EU and Canada.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    The EU is not a member of NATO, neither is Ukraine. Regular reminder that Germany has given Russia more money (for gas) than they have given to protect Ukraine.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Which is still not the same as open aliance USA is doing. And EU countries are members of NATO. And did followed commitment to the war USA wanted. It is USA who is threatening annexation of multiple countries now, it is USA who supports Putin and openly praises dictators. Russia expansion is threatening Europe, not just Ukraine. You know it, I know it. And USA is about to help them. Ukraine was stupid to give up nukes, they should never trust promises about help in case of attack. They should keep the atomic bombs, but it is too late for that.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yes let's keep up foreign relations where we pay for people to arm themselves against us (china). Or we pay for the defense of people who won't pay to defend themselves (EU).

NicoJuicy 2y ago
US for a long time literally didn't want Europe to build a military/nuclear power ( and compete... ) Learn history :)
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  No this is wrong. Europe has nuclear power, weapons, and navies. And Europe has an obligation to spend on its own defense (which they have not fulfilled in some time).
  - ojl 2y ago
    Two countries in Europe have nuclear weapons (several have nuclear power though). Sweden for example had a nuclear weapons program that was shut down in the late 60s (guess which country strongly wanted us to shut it down). I think most European countries cut down too much on the defence after the Cold War, but it seems we are about to fix that. But it’s not like the US gave away fighter jets and other weapon systems for free. Several European countries spent lots of money buying US planes and other stuff.
  - NicoJuicy 2y ago
    France and the UK have it despite the US not wanting it too. Luckily! > And Europe has an obligation to spend on its own defense Yes, since the US wants to pivot to Asia. That's fairly recent on the timescale :) > which they have not fulfilled in some time Did you know the US, unlike the others, includes pensions as "military spending"? But yeah, now ... They will raise it to the required 2 % (which a lot already do)
lucasyvas 2y ago
This is a piss take.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Bummer for you it's US national policy right now.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Not an argument
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      IT IS what the majority of people voted for, so it very much IS a valid argument. If you don't like it, tough luck, but that's how democracy works. You can vote next time to change it.
      - Zamaamiro 2y ago
        The majority of people thought they were voting for cheaper groceries, not for undoing our entire system of alliances and global trade. Also, the President is not a King, so just because people voted for him it doesn't mean opposition ceases to exist. Opposition and push-back to executive policy been a mainstay of US politics. It's been true of Democratic Presidents (e.g., federal courts blocking Biden's policies), and it remains true of the current President.
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        >The majority of people thought they were voting for cheaper groceries, not for undoing our entire system of alliances and global trade. If you look at the approval rating for democrats and republicans, as reported by CNN this week, that disagrees with you. People who voted for Trump seem to be happy with what he's doing.
quickthrowman 2y ago
There’s a reason we don’t want Germany and Japan arming themselves, see world history from 1933-1945 for why.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > There’s a reason we don’t want Germany and Japan arming themselves, see world history from 1933-1945 for why. It's bizarre and frankly racist to think that that illustrates some immutable property of Germany and Japan rather than forces that can materialize in any country.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    I disagree, it’s not bizarre to think that Germany won’t try to take over the world again when they’ve already tried. Twice. I don’t consider it to be at all likely to happen, but there’s a much better chance of Germany going to war against the world than there is for virtually every other country. Feel free to ignore history, I’m not going to.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    I live in Japan, and I can tell you that I'm worried about Japan. There are constant murmurings among politicians to repeal article 9 of the constitution, the one shackling it from war; you talk about racism but the xenophobia here is visceral and constant; and there's still bad feeling that is also noticeable regarding WWII and towards other Asians and their countries. I've met some lovely, kind, and outward looking people in my time here, but I'd have to be as blind as a bat to miss the dark undertones running through society. If the Americans didn't have their bases here I think we'd be back to a pre end of WW2 Japan quite quickly.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Who is "we" in this, because it certainly isn't true of US national policy for many decades re Germany (e.g. NATO), or Japan for the last decade or so.
  - 2y ago
DrillShopper 2y ago
> "we pay for people to arm themselves against us" Sounds like you want a completely isolationist trade policy. How has that worked out for the US in the past? The only way to never pay another country to arm themselves against us or any other country is to never give them money, and unless we force them at gunpoint to give us what we want that is not going to happen. > "we pay for the defense of people who won't pay to defend themselves" The EU doesn't spend 0% on defense. Many of them are NATO members who are increasing their spending and who have demonstrated that they'll follow us into war after we are attacked (Afghanistan as an example). The US gets far more in soft power/geopolitical benefits out of our European allies and NATO members than we put in.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  >Sounds like you want a completely isolationist trade policy No. You made this up. >The EU doesn't spend 0% on defense. They don't spend their full NATO commitments. And they are only increasing their spending because the current POTUS is bullying them into it. >soft power/geopolitical benefits People love talking about this but hard power is better.
  - ojl 2y ago
    > They don't spend their full NATO commitments. Some do and some don’t. EU is not one country. But in general it’s a bit strange that we didn’t start increase spending already around 2014.
  - Zamaamiro 2y ago
    Americans enjoy their current (highly subsidized) standard of living in large part because we produce a surplus of goods and services that we export to the rest of the world. If a good chunk of the world turns against the US, such that they refuse to consume our goods and services, then Americans will not be able to continue to enjoy their current standard of living. This is why "soft power" matters, and it's why would-be contenders such as China have invested as heavily as they have in building up their soft power in LatAm, Africa, and elsewhere. So yes, enjoy your "hard power," but you'll probably be poor.
watwut 2y ago
Regular reminder that the only time article 5 of NATO was invoked, it was USA asking others to help them in war they actually wanted. And when unwanted war became possble in EU came USA ended up allying itself with Russia while trying to extort the victim country for minerals. It did helped initially, but it did not lasted and USA turned into a bully. All the while threatening annexation of parts of EU and Canada.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  The EU is not a member of NATO, neither is Ukraine. Regular reminder that Germany has given Russia more money (for gas) than they have given to protect Ukraine.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Which is still not the same as open aliance USA is doing. And EU countries are members of NATO. And did followed commitment to the war USA wanted. It is USA who is threatening annexation of multiple countries now, it is USA who supports Putin and openly praises dictators. Russia expansion is threatening Europe, not just Ukraine. You know it, I know it. And USA is about to help them. Ukraine was stupid to give up nukes, they should never trust promises about help in case of attack. They should keep the atomic bombs, but it is too late for that.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.